ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Effect of SWEEPS, EDDY, and XP‑endo finisher on organic tissue removal from simulated internal root resorption cavities using different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy of irrigation activation systems in root canal cleanliness: a region-specific analysis of debris and smear layer removal.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared conventional needle irrigation (CNI), shock wave–enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS), EDDY sonic-powered irrigation, and the XP-endo Finisher for organic tissue removal in simulated internal root resorption (IRR) cavities using 2.5% and 5% NaOCl. One hundred and twenty single-rooted mandibular first premolars were instrumented, split longitudinally, and standardized semicircular IRR cavities were prepared in the canal walls. Bovine muscle tissue samples were weighed and adapted into the cavities. The reassembled root segments were divided into three irrigant groups (distilled water, 2.5% NaOCl, or 5% NaOCl) and four activation subgroups (CNI, SWEEPS, EDDY, and XP-endo Finisher) (n = 10 per group). A total of 7 mL of irrigant (3 mL NaOCl + 1 mL EDTA + 3 mL NaOCl) was applied with a total activation time of 2 min, the roots were disassembled, and tissue dissolution was assessed by calculating the difference between the initial and final tissue weights. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni Correction. Under laboratory conditions, the use of SWEEPS and XP-endo Finisher with 2.5% and 5% NaOCl resulted in higher tissue weight loss compared to CNI and EDDY (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between them (p > 0.05). No significant difference was observed between 2.5% and 5% NaOCl, with or without activation methods (p > 0.05). Complete removal of organic tissue could not be achieved with any of the techniques. SWEEPS technology and XP-endo Finisher demonstrated higher efficiency in removing organic tissue from IRR cavities compared with the CNI and EDDY systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41398490What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.